Day: September 5, 2018

th

Obama returns…




Obama returns...

(Third column, 12th story, link)


Related stories:
Top House Dems show increasing confidence in retaking majority…
Signs grow for blue wave…
Michelle to hold voting rallies…

Advertise here





Source link

Signs grow for blue wave…



Signs grow for blue wave...

(Third column, 8th story, link)


Related stories:
Top House Dems show increasing confidence in retaking majority…
Obama returns…
Michelle to hold voting rallies…

Advertise here





Source link

physed-tennis-facebookJumbo.jpg

Best Sport for Longer Life? Tennis…


Playing tennis and other sports that are social might add years to your life, according to a new epidemiological study of Danish men and women.

The study found that adults who reported frequently participating in tennis or other racket and team sports lived longer than people who were sedentary. But they also lived longer than people who took part in reliably healthy but often solitary activities such as jogging, swimming and cycling.

The results raise interesting questions about the role that social interactions might play in augmenting the benefits of exercise.

At this point, no one doubts that being physically active improves our health and can extend our longevity. Multiple, recent epidemiological studies have pinpointed links between regular exercise and longer lives in men and women.

The researchers zeroed in on 8,600 of the participants who had been part of the study for about 25 years.

They cross-referenced records with the national death registry to see if and when any of these people had passed away.

Then they compared activities and life spans.

The most obvious finding was that people who had reported almost never exercising were more likely than the active to have died in the ensuing decades.

The associations between particular activities and life span were more surprising.

Cycling was the most popular activity among the Danes in the study, many of whom reported riding for four or more hours every week. Their pedaling was associated with a lengthier life span, adding an average of 3.7 years to riders’ lives, compared to sedentary Danes.

Running likewise was associated with an extra 3.2 years of life.

But these gains were notably less than for playing tennis, which was linked to 9.7 added years of life, or badminton, which was linked to an extra 6.2 years, or soccer, which added almost 5 years to players’ lives.

These associations remained unchanged even when the researchers controlled for people’s education, socioeconomic status and age.

Why and how some sports might add more years to people’s lives than others is impossible to know from this kind of observational study, says Dr. James O’Keefe, a study co-author and the director of preventive cardiology at the Mid America Heart Institute at Saint Luke’s Health Center in Kansas City.

The differing physical demands of some sports could play a role, he says, although little of the exercise in this study was heavily intense, whether people were cycling or backhanding a shuttlecock.

Income and other aspects of people’s lifestyles also likely matter, he says. The researchers tried to account for socioeconomic factors, but it remains possible, he says, that people who have sufficient money and leisure time to play tennis live longer because they have sufficient money and leisure time, not because they play tennis.

Still, he suspects that the social aspects of racket games and other team sports are a primary reason that they seem to lengthen lives, he says.

“We know from other research that social support provides stress mitigation,” he says.

“So being with other people, playing and interacting with them, as you do when you play games that require a partner or a team, probably has unique psychological and physiological effects,” he says, amplifying the benefits of the exercise.

That possibility requires verification, he says, especially in randomized experiments directly comparing different types of exercise.

But for now, people who run or ride solo might consider finding a group or partner with whom to work out, he says.

“Raising your heart rate is important” for health, he says. “But it looks like connecting with other people is, too.”



Source link

208883.jpg

Does Mueller Have an October Surprise?


The upcoming mid-term election is perhaps the most consequential since 1932 when the Democrats won 97 House and 12 Senate seats, setting in motion the big-government agenda of Franklin D. Roosevelt as well as nearly 62 years of Democrat dominance of Congress.  Were the current iteration of the Democratic Party to regain control of Congress, the impeachment of Donald Trump would be inevitable.  Further, there would be a cessation, perhaps permanently, of any effort to undo the damage inflicted on the nation by Barack Obama and todays unabashedly socialist Democratic Party now steeped in cultural Marxism.

In 1992 a special prosecutor also investigating alleged collusion with a foreign nation by another presidential administration took it upon himself to deliberately impact an election in the last week of a campaign thus assuring the election of Bill Clinton.  

The so-called scandal was the Iran-Contra Affair and the President originally in the cross-hairs was Ronald Reagan.  The charge: the Reagan Administration colluded with Israel and Iran to sell arms to Iran in an effort to obtain the release of American hostages and divert the proceeds to fund an insurgency in communist Nicaragua in an alleged violation of an arcane amendment to a spending bill.  The unwritten objective in the investigation was to permanently damage Reagan’s popularity and legacy as well as undermine his potential Republican successor in the election of 1988.

Lawrence Walsh, appointed in 1986 as Independent Counsel, spent six years and $75 Million (adjusted for inflation) leaving no stone unturned in his attempt to ensnare Reagan but he failed to discover any evidence of criminality on the part of the White House.  Yet Walsh refused to end the investigation instead he pursued other administration officials during Reagan’s last two years in office and throughout the entire four years of the Bush administration.

Larence Walsh in 1960, as Deputy Attorney General  

Given six years and an unlimited budget, Walsh, in the manner of the monomaniacal Inspector Javert in Les Misérables, indicted six former Reagan officials on dubious and evergreen perjury and obstruction charges– none served any prison time and all were later pardoned.  Two others, Oliver North and John Poindexter, were convicted on a number of counts, but both had all convictions overturned on appeal.

There was never anything after six years of painstaking and dogged investigation linking the then Vice-President George H.W. Bush to the Iran-Contra Affair.

In June of 1992, a presidential election year, Walsh indicted Caspar Weinberger, Reagan’s former Secretary of Defense, on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice.  In September, the obstruction of justice count was dismissed for technical and jurisprudence reasons.  Yet, on October 30, 1992, four days before the election, Walsh filed a reindictment of Weinberger on one count of making a false statement.  

In the reindictment Walsh included, for the first time, notes from Weinberger’s diary that briefly mentioned George Bush’s attendance at a meeting that appeared to contradict something Bush had previously said, but not in a way that was meaningful or had any legal significance.   Further, the reindictment was filed after the statute of limitations had expired, as a judge later ruled, and should never have been filed or made public.

In late October 1992 the polls were tightening dramatically pointing to a Bush victory despite the presence of Ross Perot.   In a suspicious turn of events, on October 28th, Bill Clinton reversed his campaign tactics and began to aggressively accuse George Bush of being an inveterate liar and maliciously untrustworthy.  Not coincidentally, two days later the reindictment of Weinberger and the fleeting mention of Bush in his diary was made public.  

That same evening during a live appearance on Larry King’s show Bush was confronted with the Weinberger reindictment reference and his supposed prevarications as King had pre-arranged for George Stephanopoulos, Clinton’s communications director, to call into the show.  Thus, the story was national front-page news the next day.

As C. Boyden Gray, former White House Counsel to George H.W. Bush wrote (hat tip: American Conservative):

The media and the Clinton’s seized upon the indictment to bludgeon Bush.  The Associated Press claimed the indictment “contradicted President Bush’s claim he never knew that arms were being traded for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair or that two Cabinet members were opposed to the deal.”  In the New York Times, Anthony Lewis pummeled Bush, asking. “How does George Bush live with the knowledge of his disregard for the truth,” The indictment monopolized the news the weekend before Election day, and Bush’s upward trend in the polls came to an abrupt end.

Lawrence Walsh disingenuously feigned cluelessness in his memoirs attempting to convince others that he thought the Bush reference in Weinberger’s diary would not be newsworthy but that he, as independent counsel, was astonished how his inadvertence changed the course of history by affecting the outcome of an election. 

Fast forward to today.  Based on his insistence that Trump testify in what is obviously a perjury trap, the innumerable leaks emanating from Mueller’s office, the conviction of Paul Manafort on unrelated charges and the coerced guilty plea by Michael Cohen again on unrelated charges, Robert Mueller appears to have a much greater animus toward Donald Trump than Lawrence Walsh toward Ronald Reagan or George Bush. 

While Reagan was disliked by the Washington Establishment (Bush less so), Trump is loathed not only by the Washington Establishment but by almost the entirety of the media/entertainment complex.  During the Bush presidency the mainstream media leaned overwhelmingly Democratic, however, 40% of the coverage of George Bush was generally favorable as compared to just 10% with Donald Trump.

Therefore, Mueller has at his disposal a veritable army of like-minded foot soldiers prepared, on a strategically timed basis, to promote leaks, false stories and innuendos as well as the fine print in any indictment or plea bargain.  

Two week or less before November 6, 2018, Mueller can do what Walsh did and imbed an implication of wrongdoing by Trump in an indictment or, as has already happened, a plea bargain, such as the Michael Cohen coerced guilty plea vis-a-vis legal campaign contributions.  Which was done solely to implicate and embarrass Donald Trump.

Further, Mueller’s henchmen could, in collusion with the many willing accomplices in the Democratic Party and the media, plant a series of dubious leaks and incriminatory insinuations about Trump or his campaign.  There would not be enough time for the Trump administration to successfully refute the incessant media drumbeat of scandal as every Republican candidate for Congress would be forced to answer for the charges.  Thereby shifting the advantage to their Democrat opponents.

The fact that Mueller did not wrap up the investigation prior to Labor Day of 2016 and displays no intention of doing so in the near future insinuates the very real possibility that he or his dyed-in-the-wool Democratic prosecutors may well make a play in October to rid the nation of Donald Trump and the Republican Congress.  There is little doubt that this strategy has been thought of and is being contemplated by the diehard anti-Trump cabal within the Ruling Class.

Therefore, if the Mueller team has not issued a final report on alleged Russian collusion by the middle of September, Donald Trump, the individual Republican candidates as well as the Republican National Committee must go on an unbridled offensive relentlessly alerting the citizenry to the very real possibility of sabotage and collusion by pointing to history and the behavior to date of the Mueller inquisitors.

The investigation that was ostensibly initiated to ascertain if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to affect the 2016 election has been ongoing for twenty-seven months.  Seventeen months of which have been in the hands of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his Democrat phalanx of investigators and prosecutors spending in excess of $1.4 million a month.)  This prolonged inquisition has produced no evidence or indictments supporting the collusion allegation.  Yet the investigation marches on with no end in sight.  

But is there, in fact, an end game?  Is that end game waiting until late October to impact an election in order to switch control of Congress to the Democrats?  Is it to make certain Trump cannot run for re-election in 2020?  Or is it both? 

The upcoming mid-term election is perhaps the most consequential since 1932 when the Democrats won 97 House and 12 Senate seats, setting in motion the big-government agenda of Franklin D. Roosevelt as well as nearly 62 years of Democrat dominance of Congress.  Were the current iteration of the Democratic Party to regain control of Congress, the impeachment of Donald Trump would be inevitable.  Further, there would be a cessation, perhaps permanently, of any effort to undo the damage inflicted on the nation by Barack Obama and todays unabashedly socialist Democratic Party now steeped in cultural Marxism.

In 1992 a special prosecutor also investigating alleged collusion with a foreign nation by another presidential administration took it upon himself to deliberately impact an election in the last week of a campaign thus assuring the election of Bill Clinton.  

The so-called scandal was the Iran-Contra Affair and the President originally in the cross-hairs was Ronald Reagan.  The charge: the Reagan Administration colluded with Israel and Iran to sell arms to Iran in an effort to obtain the release of American hostages and divert the proceeds to fund an insurgency in communist Nicaragua in an alleged violation of an arcane amendment to a spending bill.  The unwritten objective in the investigation was to permanently damage Reagan’s popularity and legacy as well as undermine his potential Republican successor in the election of 1988.

Lawrence Walsh, appointed in 1986 as Independent Counsel, spent six years and $75 Million (adjusted for inflation) leaving no stone unturned in his attempt to ensnare Reagan but he failed to discover any evidence of criminality on the part of the White House.  Yet Walsh refused to end the investigation instead he pursued other administration officials during Reagan’s last two years in office and throughout the entire four years of the Bush administration.

Larence Walsh in 1960, as Deputy Attorney General  

Given six years and an unlimited budget, Walsh, in the manner of the monomaniacal Inspector Javert in Les Misérables, indicted six former Reagan officials on dubious and evergreen perjury and obstruction charges– none served any prison time and all were later pardoned.  Two others, Oliver North and John Poindexter, were convicted on a number of counts, but both had all convictions overturned on appeal.

There was never anything after six years of painstaking and dogged investigation linking the then Vice-President George H.W. Bush to the Iran-Contra Affair.

In June of 1992, a presidential election year, Walsh indicted Caspar Weinberger, Reagan’s former Secretary of Defense, on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice.  In September, the obstruction of justice count was dismissed for technical and jurisprudence reasons.  Yet, on October 30, 1992, four days before the election, Walsh filed a reindictment of Weinberger on one count of making a false statement.  

In the reindictment Walsh included, for the first time, notes from Weinberger’s diary that briefly mentioned George Bush’s attendance at a meeting that appeared to contradict something Bush had previously said, but not in a way that was meaningful or had any legal significance.   Further, the reindictment was filed after the statute of limitations had expired, as a judge later ruled, and should never have been filed or made public.

In late October 1992 the polls were tightening dramatically pointing to a Bush victory despite the presence of Ross Perot.   In a suspicious turn of events, on October 28th, Bill Clinton reversed his campaign tactics and began to aggressively accuse George Bush of being an inveterate liar and maliciously untrustworthy.  Not coincidentally, two days later the reindictment of Weinberger and the fleeting mention of Bush in his diary was made public.  

That same evening during a live appearance on Larry King’s show Bush was confronted with the Weinberger reindictment reference and his supposed prevarications as King had pre-arranged for George Stephanopoulos, Clinton’s communications director, to call into the show.  Thus, the story was national front-page news the next day.

As C. Boyden Gray, former White House Counsel to George H.W. Bush wrote (hat tip: American Conservative):

The media and the Clinton’s seized upon the indictment to bludgeon Bush.  The Associated Press claimed the indictment “contradicted President Bush’s claim he never knew that arms were being traded for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair or that two Cabinet members were opposed to the deal.”  In the New York Times, Anthony Lewis pummeled Bush, asking. “How does George Bush live with the knowledge of his disregard for the truth,” The indictment monopolized the news the weekend before Election day, and Bush’s upward trend in the polls came to an abrupt end.

Lawrence Walsh disingenuously feigned cluelessness in his memoirs attempting to convince others that he thought the Bush reference in Weinberger’s diary would not be newsworthy but that he, as independent counsel, was astonished how his inadvertence changed the course of history by affecting the outcome of an election. 

Fast forward to today.  Based on his insistence that Trump testify in what is obviously a perjury trap, the innumerable leaks emanating from Mueller’s office, the conviction of Paul Manafort on unrelated charges and the coerced guilty plea by Michael Cohen again on unrelated charges, Robert Mueller appears to have a much greater animus toward Donald Trump than Lawrence Walsh toward Ronald Reagan or George Bush. 

While Reagan was disliked by the Washington Establishment (Bush less so), Trump is loathed not only by the Washington Establishment but by almost the entirety of the media/entertainment complex.  During the Bush presidency the mainstream media leaned overwhelmingly Democratic, however, 40% of the coverage of George Bush was generally favorable as compared to just 10% with Donald Trump.

Therefore, Mueller has at his disposal a veritable army of like-minded foot soldiers prepared, on a strategically timed basis, to promote leaks, false stories and innuendos as well as the fine print in any indictment or plea bargain.  

Two week or less before November 6, 2018, Mueller can do what Walsh did and imbed an implication of wrongdoing by Trump in an indictment or, as has already happened, a plea bargain, such as the Michael Cohen coerced guilty plea vis-a-vis legal campaign contributions.  Which was done solely to implicate and embarrass Donald Trump.

Further, Mueller’s henchmen could, in collusion with the many willing accomplices in the Democratic Party and the media, plant a series of dubious leaks and incriminatory insinuations about Trump or his campaign.  There would not be enough time for the Trump administration to successfully refute the incessant media drumbeat of scandal as every Republican candidate for Congress would be forced to answer for the charges.  Thereby shifting the advantage to their Democrat opponents.

The fact that Mueller did not wrap up the investigation prior to Labor Day of 2016 and displays no intention of doing so in the near future insinuates the very real possibility that he or his dyed-in-the-wool Democratic prosecutors may well make a play in October to rid the nation of Donald Trump and the Republican Congress.  There is little doubt that this strategy has been thought of and is being contemplated by the diehard anti-Trump cabal within the Ruling Class.

Therefore, if the Mueller team has not issued a final report on alleged Russian collusion by the middle of September, Donald Trump, the individual Republican candidates as well as the Republican National Committee must go on an unbridled offensive relentlessly alerting the citizenry to the very real possibility of sabotage and collusion by pointing to history and the behavior to date of the Mueller inquisitors.



Source link

208884.png

Peak Oil: A Lesson in False Prophecy



Peak oil gave a boost to the anti-growth movement and to the general feeling that we would soon deplete most of the world's resources.



Source link

The Times Are Not Really Changing


Sarah Jeong, tech writer for the New York Times, thinks “white men are bullshit”. Pankaj Mishra, another writer for the New York Times, thinks the “religion of whiteness” (remember, white people don’t really exist according to the “party of science”) is leading the Earth toward “racial war and chaos”. It’s eerie how similar anti-racism and good ol’ racism sound, is it not?

The thing is, anti-white racism (anti-asperism) is not some peculiar aberration from or incidental to modern leftism, but its essence. These insane articles and shameful events are not isolated, nor are they unfortunate examples of leftist hypocrisy or fallibility, they are the apotheosis of leftist thought. Jeong and Mishra believe exactly what their Marxist professors taught them and are exactly what Western power structures (including the press and the entertainment industry) have conditioned them to be.

The white man is the enduring arch-villain in the Cultural Marxist conception of history. He is not inventing calculus or developing life-saving vaccines or traveling to the moon, he is terrorizing every innocent non-white in his midst, depriving each and every one of them of their god-given rights to life, liberty, and opportunity for no apparent reason. The white man looms large in the minds of the modern left. He is a cartoon whose boots only Lucifer himself could fill.

After all, what do feminists and Islamists have in common save white-hatred? Without delusions of victimhood at the hands of the all-powerful white man (either via gender discrimination in corporate promotions or via bombs raining down on small Afghan villages), there’s really nothing. Anti-white hatred is the glue that holds the modern left together.

In this way, the right’s griping about the left’s philosophical inconsistency (i.e. its unwillingness to police anti-white racism like it polices all other forms of racism) is shown to be perfectly valid but also perfectly absurd. In the first place, the left has never been philosophically consistent about much of anything. In the second place, there is no left without white-hatred. The modern political left is anti-white by design. Indeed, dismantling everything perceived to be white is much of the political left’s very reason for existing. Taking the white-hatred out of the political left would be like taking Christ out of Christmas.

The Cultural Marxist left’s crusade against the patriarchy isn’t a crusade against the patriarchy, it’s a crusade against the *white* patriarchy (which doesn’t exist, mind you). Genuinely oppressive patriarchies in non-white cultures and territories (think China or the Middle East) must be tolerated in the name of almighty diversity. Likewise, the social justice crusade against “hate speech” (aka the truth) takes no exception to the crude anti-white racist rhetoric pervading “black twitter”. Furthermore, I’m quite certain I’ve never read an op-ed in any periodical of note excoriating Japan’s restrictive immigration policy, or Mexico’s for that matter.

You can pretty much put the word “white” in front of all of the left’s bugaboos in order to properly comprehend them. The modern left doesn’t oppose tradition, it opposes white traditions. It isn’t against religion, it’s against the white man’s religion (Christianity). The enemy only appears to change; in reality, only the weapon changes.

This is of course only necessary when the left is being opaque about the fundamentally anti-white orientation of its racist propaganda. With terms like “white fragility” and “white privilege” the “white” is provided free of inquiry and there is no way to even doubt what the left is seeking to destroy, being wide open about its animus and its designs.

To the political left, “racism” only matters and has only ever mattered when whites are engaged in it. If any other group (blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, whoever) is advancing its racial interests, even in ways deeply detrimental to the interests of other groups, it isn’t racism at all, but “social justice” instead.

As before stated, the vile white-hatred on full display at the New York Times in recent months cannot be chalked up to mounting frustration with trolls or moral imperfection. These were not random events, nor are Jeong and Mishra leftist radicals or fringe characters. They and their anti-white attitudes are very much mainstream on the left. These thinkers and these attitudes, if anything, are the culmination of Cultural Marxist thought. They are the logical and predictable results of that vile and delusional ideology. Truth be told, the fundamentally anti-white ideology of the left hasn’t changed much since mid-century. The only real difference is that now the left has the demographics and the political capital to be open about its disdain for all things white.

These urban elites can couch their racist propaganda in whatever fashionable buzzwords they choose, but sensible people know blatant racism when they see it. If only the American people were more aware of the covert anti-white racism that imbues and defines the modern left. The vicious little racist stuff over at the Times is but the fruit of a much larger fungus. What’s more, if anything is leading the world toward racial war and chaos, it is not whiteness or white supremacy (a virtually nonexistent force in contemporary geopolitics), but Cultural Marxism, the prevailing ideology of the Western World, which has made mass migration (invasion) into formerly white nations a human right, the word “white” into a slur and being white into a veritable sin.

Sarah Jeong, tech writer for the New York Times, thinks “white men are bullshit”. Pankaj Mishra, another writer for the New York Times, thinks the “religion of whiteness” (remember, white people don’t really exist according to the “party of science”) is leading the Earth toward “racial war and chaos”. It’s eerie how similar anti-racism and good ol’ racism sound, is it not?

The thing is, anti-white racism (anti-asperism) is not some peculiar aberration from or incidental to modern leftism, but its essence. These insane articles and shameful events are not isolated, nor are they unfortunate examples of leftist hypocrisy or fallibility, they are the apotheosis of leftist thought. Jeong and Mishra believe exactly what their Marxist professors taught them and are exactly what Western power structures (including the press and the entertainment industry) have conditioned them to be.

The white man is the enduring arch-villain in the Cultural Marxist conception of history. He is not inventing calculus or developing life-saving vaccines or traveling to the moon, he is terrorizing every innocent non-white in his midst, depriving each and every one of them of their god-given rights to life, liberty, and opportunity for no apparent reason. The white man looms large in the minds of the modern left. He is a cartoon whose boots only Lucifer himself could fill.

After all, what do feminists and Islamists have in common save white-hatred? Without delusions of victimhood at the hands of the all-powerful white man (either via gender discrimination in corporate promotions or via bombs raining down on small Afghan villages), there’s really nothing. Anti-white hatred is the glue that holds the modern left together.

In this way, the right’s griping about the left’s philosophical inconsistency (i.e. its unwillingness to police anti-white racism like it polices all other forms of racism) is shown to be perfectly valid but also perfectly absurd. In the first place, the left has never been philosophically consistent about much of anything. In the second place, there is no left without white-hatred. The modern political left is anti-white by design. Indeed, dismantling everything perceived to be white is much of the political left’s very reason for existing. Taking the white-hatred out of the political left would be like taking Christ out of Christmas.

The Cultural Marxist left’s crusade against the patriarchy isn’t a crusade against the patriarchy, it’s a crusade against the *white* patriarchy (which doesn’t exist, mind you). Genuinely oppressive patriarchies in non-white cultures and territories (think China or the Middle East) must be tolerated in the name of almighty diversity. Likewise, the social justice crusade against “hate speech” (aka the truth) takes no exception to the crude anti-white racist rhetoric pervading “black twitter”. Furthermore, I’m quite certain I’ve never read an op-ed in any periodical of note excoriating Japan’s restrictive immigration policy, or Mexico’s for that matter.

You can pretty much put the word “white” in front of all of the left’s bugaboos in order to properly comprehend them. The modern left doesn’t oppose tradition, it opposes white traditions. It isn’t against religion, it’s against the white man’s religion (Christianity). The enemy only appears to change; in reality, only the weapon changes.

This is of course only necessary when the left is being opaque about the fundamentally anti-white orientation of its racist propaganda. With terms like “white fragility” and “white privilege” the “white” is provided free of inquiry and there is no way to even doubt what the left is seeking to destroy, being wide open about its animus and its designs.

To the political left, “racism” only matters and has only ever mattered when whites are engaged in it. If any other group (blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, whoever) is advancing its racial interests, even in ways deeply detrimental to the interests of other groups, it isn’t racism at all, but “social justice” instead.

As before stated, the vile white-hatred on full display at the New York Times in recent months cannot be chalked up to mounting frustration with trolls or moral imperfection. These were not random events, nor are Jeong and Mishra leftist radicals or fringe characters. They and their anti-white attitudes are very much mainstream on the left. These thinkers and these attitudes, if anything, are the culmination of Cultural Marxist thought. They are the logical and predictable results of that vile and delusional ideology. Truth be told, the fundamentally anti-white ideology of the left hasn’t changed much since mid-century. The only real difference is that now the left has the demographics and the political capital to be open about its disdain for all things white.

These urban elites can couch their racist propaganda in whatever fashionable buzzwords they choose, but sensible people know blatant racism when they see it. If only the American people were more aware of the covert anti-white racism that imbues and defines the modern left. The vicious little racist stuff over at the Times is but the fruit of a much larger fungus. What’s more, if anything is leading the world toward racial war and chaos, it is not whiteness or white supremacy (a virtually nonexistent force in contemporary geopolitics), but Cultural Marxism, the prevailing ideology of the Western World, which has made mass migration (invasion) into formerly white nations a human right, the word “white” into a slur and being white into a veritable sin.



Source link

208885.png

Can a Red Wave Actually Happen?


The midterms are right around the corner and political pundits everywhere are sounding off about the most likely outcomes. And despite the feeling that Democrats are about to regain majorities, there’s plenty of reason to believe that Republicans can maintain their stronghold.

Here’s What the Democrats Need to Do

It’s hard to believe that we’re already nearing the halfway point of President Donald Trump’s first term in the White House. But November 6 is quickly approaching, which means it’s once again election season.

While midterm elections rarely get the hype and turnout that presidential elections do, they’re arguably just as important — this year especially. If the Republicans can keep control, President Trump will be able to keep up the momentum he’s gradually built over the last 18-plus months. But if the Democrats regain majorities in either the House or the Senate, the tides would begin to change.

In the Senate, the Republicans currently hold a 51 to 49 lead. There are 35 seats up for grabs this year, of which 26 are held by Democrats. Considering that they need to gain two seats in order to take control, the Democrats face an uphill battle. They’ll essentially need a clean sweep — plus two additional seats.

The problem for the Democrats is that they have to defend ten seats in states that Trump won in 2016. On top of that, there aren’t very many opportunities to take seats from Republicans.

The best chance the left has of regaining some control in Washington is to reclaim the House. They need to flip 24 seats here, which is neither unprecedented nor uncommon.

“There have been swings of 24 seats or more in half of the midterm elections since 1994,” Jasmine C. Lee writes for the New York Times. “The last time Democrats took the House with that kind of swing was the 2006 midterm election, when they picked up 32 seats. In 2010, as the Tea Party movement against President Obama’s policies shifted the political landscape, Republicans took control of the House by flipping 64 seats. They have held the chamber ever since.”

All 435 House seats are up for grabs this year, with more than 10 percent of them considered highly competitive (tossups or slight leans towards one party).

Most pundits are predicting the Republicans hold on to their narrow lead in the Senate, while the Democrats regain control in the House — albeit by a slight margin. So the idea of a red wave or blue wave doesn’t seem all that likely. However, as history has shown, it’s never smart to postulate the impossible. And while the blue version is certainly more probable, don’t count out a fiery red wave.

A Red Wave is Still Possible… And Here’s Why

Just as the Democrats need a lot to go right to facilitate a blue wave, the Republicans need a perfect storm of sorts. While some are more likely than others, here are a few of the reasons why a red wave is possible.

  1. The Economy Continues to Thrive

The left can scream about Russia until they lose their voices, but most Americans frankly don’t care. The majority see it as much ado about nothing. (A recent poll of Americans on both sides of the political fence reveals that Russia’s alleged involvement in the recent election isn’t even one of the eight issues Americans care most about. Even the broad issue of ethics and morality is viewed as more important.)

Americans care about concrete issues — ones that impact their daily lives in tangible ways. And what’s more tangible than the state of the economy?

Trump’s economy continues to thrive, which has been catalytic in his growing approval rating. As economist Chuck Jones explains, GDP growth is up, the S&P 500 is soaring, unemployment rates are at record lows, millions of jobs are being added, hourly wages are up, and people are happy. Voters who are on the fence won’t want to rock the boat — which bodes well for Republicans.

  1. Republicans Have Mastered Grassroots Campaigning

Trump won the 2016 election as a result of grassroots campaigning. Sure, he was backed by millions of dollars, but it wasn’t the money that earned him the victory — it was the way in which his campaign swept through the nation and moved individual people to become part of a larger collective.

While Democrats spend a lot of time campaigning based on identity politics, their policies and campaigns are ironically very individualistic and divisive. Republicans, on the other hand, have grasped the significance of taking a collective focus and using words like “we” and “us,” rather than “me” or “them.”

If Republicans are to win big in November, it’ll be the direct result of strategic grassroots campaigning. Simple things like printing and distributing flyers or hosting community events all count. They cut through the BS that oozes from campaign commercials and involve the very people who control the outcomes — the voters.

  1. The Democrats Have No Platform

When you look at Republicans, it’s pretty clear what they’re fighting for right now. They want safer borders, a stronger Department of Defense, and true freedom of speech. When you look at Democrats, it isn’t clear what they want.

Can you name an issue that the Democrats are running on without using Trump’s name? All they care about is Trump this and Trump that. They have no platform to stand on. They’ve become so hardened against the right that they’ve actually begun to turn on themselves. The left seems to have lost all reason, with key party leaders going so far as to say that America was never great to begin with.

In the words of Fox News host Tucker Carlson, “Trump has totally corroded their own standards.”

No matter what year it is or who controls Washington, it’s hard to win a midterm without a solid platform.

Only Time Will Tell

Again, it isn’t very likely that a blue wave or red wave will sweep the nation in November. It’s far more probable that the Republicans will hold the Senate and the Democrats will put up a fight for the House. But, if a red wave does happen, you can bet the three factors outlined here will come into play.

The midterms are right around the corner and political pundits everywhere are sounding off about the most likely outcomes. And despite the feeling that Democrats are about to regain majorities, there’s plenty of reason to believe that Republicans can maintain their stronghold.

Here’s What the Democrats Need to Do

It’s hard to believe that we’re already nearing the halfway point of President Donald Trump’s first term in the White House. But November 6 is quickly approaching, which means it’s once again election season.

While midterm elections rarely get the hype and turnout that presidential elections do, they’re arguably just as important — this year especially. If the Republicans can keep control, President Trump will be able to keep up the momentum he’s gradually built over the last 18-plus months. But if the Democrats regain majorities in either the House or the Senate, the tides would begin to change.

In the Senate, the Republicans currently hold a 51 to 49 lead. There are 35 seats up for grabs this year, of which 26 are held by Democrats. Considering that they need to gain two seats in order to take control, the Democrats face an uphill battle. They’ll essentially need a clean sweep — plus two additional seats.

The problem for the Democrats is that they have to defend ten seats in states that Trump won in 2016. On top of that, there aren’t very many opportunities to take seats from Republicans.

The best chance the left has of regaining some control in Washington is to reclaim the House. They need to flip 24 seats here, which is neither unprecedented nor uncommon.

“There have been swings of 24 seats or more in half of the midterm elections since 1994,” Jasmine C. Lee writes for the New York Times. “The last time Democrats took the House with that kind of swing was the 2006 midterm election, when they picked up 32 seats. In 2010, as the Tea Party movement against President Obama’s policies shifted the political landscape, Republicans took control of the House by flipping 64 seats. They have held the chamber ever since.”

All 435 House seats are up for grabs this year, with more than 10 percent of them considered highly competitive (tossups or slight leans towards one party).

Most pundits are predicting the Republicans hold on to their narrow lead in the Senate, while the Democrats regain control in the House — albeit by a slight margin. So the idea of a red wave or blue wave doesn’t seem all that likely. However, as history has shown, it’s never smart to postulate the impossible. And while the blue version is certainly more probable, don’t count out a fiery red wave.

A Red Wave is Still Possible… And Here’s Why

Just as the Democrats need a lot to go right to facilitate a blue wave, the Republicans need a perfect storm of sorts. While some are more likely than others, here are a few of the reasons why a red wave is possible.

  1. The Economy Continues to Thrive

The left can scream about Russia until they lose their voices, but most Americans frankly don’t care. The majority see it as much ado about nothing. (A recent poll of Americans on both sides of the political fence reveals that Russia’s alleged involvement in the recent election isn’t even one of the eight issues Americans care most about. Even the broad issue of ethics and morality is viewed as more important.)

Americans care about concrete issues — ones that impact their daily lives in tangible ways. And what’s more tangible than the state of the economy?

Trump’s economy continues to thrive, which has been catalytic in his growing approval rating. As economist Chuck Jones explains, GDP growth is up, the S&P 500 is soaring, unemployment rates are at record lows, millions of jobs are being added, hourly wages are up, and people are happy. Voters who are on the fence won’t want to rock the boat — which bodes well for Republicans.

  1. Republicans Have Mastered Grassroots Campaigning

Trump won the 2016 election as a result of grassroots campaigning. Sure, he was backed by millions of dollars, but it wasn’t the money that earned him the victory — it was the way in which his campaign swept through the nation and moved individual people to become part of a larger collective.

While Democrats spend a lot of time campaigning based on identity politics, their policies and campaigns are ironically very individualistic and divisive. Republicans, on the other hand, have grasped the significance of taking a collective focus and using words like “we” and “us,” rather than “me” or “them.”

If Republicans are to win big in November, it’ll be the direct result of strategic grassroots campaigning. Simple things like printing and distributing flyers or hosting community events all count. They cut through the BS that oozes from campaign commercials and involve the very people who control the outcomes — the voters.

  1. The Democrats Have No Platform

When you look at Republicans, it’s pretty clear what they’re fighting for right now. They want safer borders, a stronger Department of Defense, and true freedom of speech. When you look at Democrats, it isn’t clear what they want.

Can you name an issue that the Democrats are running on without using Trump’s name? All they care about is Trump this and Trump that. They have no platform to stand on. They’ve become so hardened against the right that they’ve actually begun to turn on themselves. The left seems to have lost all reason, with key party leaders going so far as to say that America was never great to begin with.

In the words of Fox News host Tucker Carlson, “Trump has totally corroded their own standards.”

No matter what year it is or who controls Washington, it’s hard to win a midterm without a solid platform.

Only Time Will Tell

Again, it isn’t very likely that a blue wave or red wave will sweep the nation in November. It’s far more probable that the Republicans will hold the Senate and the Democrats will put up a fight for the House. But, if a red wave does happen, you can bet the three factors outlined here will come into play.



Source link

208827.png

Why Was Andrew Weissmann Kept 'in the Loop' by Bruce Ohr?


A week ago, August 27th, Bruce Ohr, the demoted former Associate Deputy Attorney General, testified before the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees. Among the newsworthy items that emerged, a few stand out. One of course is that his wife Nellie began working for Glenn Simpson’s opposition research outfit, Fusion GPS, back in 2015 — adding fuel to the speculation that she was involved as an FBI contractor in illegally mining NSA databases for information on GOP presidential candidates. Another item, highlighted by Chuck Ross at The Daily Caller, was that Ohr kept a number of FBI and DoJ colleagues “in the loop” regarding his highly irregular contacts with Christopher Steele, the “former” MI6 spook. Specifically:

Sources familiar with Ohr’s testimony before the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees told The Daily Caller News Foundation that Ohr informed Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page about his interactions with Steele and Simpson. He also informed Justice Department prosecutor Andrew Weissmann about his dossier-related work.


Weissmann is now serving as right-hand man to Robert Mueller at the special counsel’s office.

It seems to me that the question that needs to be asked is: Why Andrew Weissmann? Why was Ohr keeping Weissmann, who was at the time head of DoJ’s Criminal Fraud Section, in the loop on what to all appearances was a Counterintelligence investigation? If Ohr kept Weissmann in the loop out of friendship, that still breaks the first rule of conspiratorial operations: need to know. Unless … Weissmann was contributing or could potentially contribute something of value to the conspiracy.

What Weissmann’s contribution to the Russia hoax might have been is suggested by his previous career.

Weissmann is best known as a hard charging prosecutor, but one with a reputation for being willing to take ethical shortcuts to make the big case. This led, in 2005, to the US Supreme Court unanimously overturning the conviction in his biggest case: Arthur Anderson, part of the Enron Scandal. The criticism of Weissmann’s “intimidating” “scorched earth” tactics that arose from the case made him a hot potato in the legal world, but fortunately for him he landed on his feet — as Special Counsel to a friend and former colleague, FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Screen grab YouTube

This was Weissmann’s first gig at the FBI, and lasted probably less than a full year while he looked for a more lucrative position. By the end of 2005, Weissmann went into private practice, becoming a partner at Jenner & Block in New York. But in 2011, Weissmann returned to the FBI and his mentor Mueller, serving as General Counsel under Mueller until the end of Mueller’s term in September 2013.

He continued at the FBI under James Comey until January 2015, when he returned to DoJ as head of the Criminal Fraud Section. His final career move, to date, was his reunion with Mueller, joining Mueller’s Special Counsel team in June 2017.

What was Weissmann doing as General Counsel at the FBI? According to DoJ:

“The General Counsel of the FBI is ultimately responsible for all of the legal affairs of the FBI. … The General Counsel interacts regularly with all of the elements of the FBI, the Justice Department, the U.S. Intelligence Community, a range of other government agencies, foreign partners….”

You get the drift. During his four years as General Counsel at the FBI, Weissmann would have been interacting on a daily basis with FBI management at the very highest levels, certainly including the Director (Mueller, then Comey) and Deputy Director — with additional contact with the highest levels in all important Divisions. Beyond that, however, he would have been developing contacts throughout the Intelligence Community and with “foreign partners” — prominently including the British intelligence agencies. The appeal of having Weissmann “in the loop” of the Russia hoax is obvious — he would be a trusted contact with the top levels of the FBI and would have a wide range of other useful contacts.

But Weissmann’s connections to the FBI would not have been the end of his usefulness. Weissmann was well known to be a Hillary Clinton partisan, and even attended the Clinton election night surprise wake. Just how extensive were Weissmann’s contacts with the Clinton campaign? Here the waters are murky. Nevertheless, Weissmann is known to have had contacts with Mary Jacoby, the wife of Glenn Simpson, as well as with Simpson himself.

Aaron Klein has detailed remarkable new information involving contacts of Edward Lieberman with the Russians involved in the famous Trump Tower meeting. Not only on the days surrounding that meeting, but the very day of the meeting. Edward Lieberman is a lawyer and an associate of Madeline Albright, whose expertise involves “multi-billion dollar privatizations of oil and gas assets in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Russia.” He was also the husband of the late Evelyn Lieberman, a Deputy Chief of Staff in the Clinton White House.

Was Bruce Ohr “in the loop” regarding the Trump Tower meeting — which I regard as a clear attempt to set up Donald Trump Jr. and/or Jared Kushner in a quid-pro-quo arrangement for supposed “dirt” on Hillary Clinton? If Ohr knew of this attempted setup of the Trump campaign, there would seem to be little doubt that Weissmann also knew. Further, since both would have known of the connection of Fusion GPS to the Clinton campaign, was there possibly a more direct connection to the Clinton campaign, through Weissman?

Finally, when it came time to select a Special Counsel, would not Weissmann have been a logical person to sound out Mueller on returning to government — or should we say Deep State — work? It’s telling that Weissmann jumped on board the Mueller train as soon as the Special Counsel was established. Had there been preliminary discussions?

We now know that Weissman was a more integral part of the Russia Hoax/conspiracy than previously suspected — probably from the very beginning. The question is, just how extensive was his involvement? Did it extend to contact with the Clinton campaign itself? Did it extend beyond the election to strategizing with FBI efforts to ensnare and use George Papadopoulos? Did it extend to reaching out to his mentor Mueller during the early months of the Trump administration, planning for a Special Counsel?

The answers to these questions should be of pressing concern to Congressional investigators.

Mark Wauck is a retired FBI agent who blogs on religion, philosophy, and FISA at meaning in history.

A week ago, August 27th, Bruce Ohr, the demoted former Associate Deputy Attorney General, testified before the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees. Among the newsworthy items that emerged, a few stand out. One of course is that his wife Nellie began working for Glenn Simpson’s opposition research outfit, Fusion GPS, back in 2015 — adding fuel to the speculation that she was involved as an FBI contractor in illegally mining NSA databases for information on GOP presidential candidates. Another item, highlighted by Chuck Ross at The Daily Caller, was that Ohr kept a number of FBI and DoJ colleagues “in the loop” regarding his highly irregular contacts with Christopher Steele, the “former” MI6 spook. Specifically:

Sources familiar with Ohr’s testimony before the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees told The Daily Caller News Foundation that Ohr informed Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page about his interactions with Steele and Simpson. He also informed Justice Department prosecutor Andrew Weissmann about his dossier-related work.


Weissmann is now serving as right-hand man to Robert Mueller at the special counsel’s office.

It seems to me that the question that needs to be asked is: Why Andrew Weissmann? Why was Ohr keeping Weissmann, who was at the time head of DoJ’s Criminal Fraud Section, in the loop on what to all appearances was a Counterintelligence investigation? If Ohr kept Weissmann in the loop out of friendship, that still breaks the first rule of conspiratorial operations: need to know. Unless … Weissmann was contributing or could potentially contribute something of value to the conspiracy.

What Weissmann’s contribution to the Russia hoax might have been is suggested by his previous career.

Weissmann is best known as a hard charging prosecutor, but one with a reputation for being willing to take ethical shortcuts to make the big case. This led, in 2005, to the US Supreme Court unanimously overturning the conviction in his biggest case: Arthur Anderson, part of the Enron Scandal. The criticism of Weissmann’s “intimidating” “scorched earth” tactics that arose from the case made him a hot potato in the legal world, but fortunately for him he landed on his feet — as Special Counsel to a friend and former colleague, FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Screen grab YouTube

This was Weissmann’s first gig at the FBI, and lasted probably less than a full year while he looked for a more lucrative position. By the end of 2005, Weissmann went into private practice, becoming a partner at Jenner & Block in New York. But in 2011, Weissmann returned to the FBI and his mentor Mueller, serving as General Counsel under Mueller until the end of Mueller’s term in September 2013.

He continued at the FBI under James Comey until January 2015, when he returned to DoJ as head of the Criminal Fraud Section. His final career move, to date, was his reunion with Mueller, joining Mueller’s Special Counsel team in June 2017.

What was Weissmann doing as General Counsel at the FBI? According to DoJ:

“The General Counsel of the FBI is ultimately responsible for all of the legal affairs of the FBI. … The General Counsel interacts regularly with all of the elements of the FBI, the Justice Department, the U.S. Intelligence Community, a range of other government agencies, foreign partners….”

You get the drift. During his four years as General Counsel at the FBI, Weissmann would have been interacting on a daily basis with FBI management at the very highest levels, certainly including the Director (Mueller, then Comey) and Deputy Director — with additional contact with the highest levels in all important Divisions. Beyond that, however, he would have been developing contacts throughout the Intelligence Community and with “foreign partners” — prominently including the British intelligence agencies. The appeal of having Weissmann “in the loop” of the Russia hoax is obvious — he would be a trusted contact with the top levels of the FBI and would have a wide range of other useful contacts.

But Weissmann’s connections to the FBI would not have been the end of his usefulness. Weissmann was well known to be a Hillary Clinton partisan, and even attended the Clinton election night surprise wake. Just how extensive were Weissmann’s contacts with the Clinton campaign? Here the waters are murky. Nevertheless, Weissmann is known to have had contacts with Mary Jacoby, the wife of Glenn Simpson, as well as with Simpson himself.

Aaron Klein has detailed remarkable new information involving contacts of Edward Lieberman with the Russians involved in the famous Trump Tower meeting. Not only on the days surrounding that meeting, but the very day of the meeting. Edward Lieberman is a lawyer and an associate of Madeline Albright, whose expertise involves “multi-billion dollar privatizations of oil and gas assets in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Russia.” He was also the husband of the late Evelyn Lieberman, a Deputy Chief of Staff in the Clinton White House.

Was Bruce Ohr “in the loop” regarding the Trump Tower meeting — which I regard as a clear attempt to set up Donald Trump Jr. and/or Jared Kushner in a quid-pro-quo arrangement for supposed “dirt” on Hillary Clinton? If Ohr knew of this attempted setup of the Trump campaign, there would seem to be little doubt that Weissmann also knew. Further, since both would have known of the connection of Fusion GPS to the Clinton campaign, was there possibly a more direct connection to the Clinton campaign, through Weissman?

Finally, when it came time to select a Special Counsel, would not Weissmann have been a logical person to sound out Mueller on returning to government — or should we say Deep State — work? It’s telling that Weissmann jumped on board the Mueller train as soon as the Special Counsel was established. Had there been preliminary discussions?

We now know that Weissman was a more integral part of the Russia Hoax/conspiracy than previously suspected — probably from the very beginning. The question is, just how extensive was his involvement? Did it extend to contact with the Clinton campaign itself? Did it extend beyond the election to strategizing with FBI efforts to ensnare and use George Papadopoulos? Did it extend to reaching out to his mentor Mueller during the early months of the Trump administration, planning for a Special Counsel?

The answers to these questions should be of pressing concern to Congressional investigators.

Mark Wauck is a retired FBI agent who blogs on religion, philosophy, and FISA at meaning in history.



Source link

208802.png

A Solution to Internet Tyranny


There’s a simple constitutional solution to the problem of Internet tyranny which does not involve the government controlling the Internet.

Right now, the tech giants are having their cake and eating it too.  They say that they are content-neutral platforms which do not control what information appears on their sites, when they in fact control the content of their sites by censoring voices they don’t like.

The reason that it’s critical, from a financial perspective, for Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. to be considered platforms is that platforms can’t be sued for libelous content.

But publishers can be sued for the simple reason that a publisher controls the information that is present on their site while a platform doesn’t.

It’s a good thing that platforms can’t be sued for content because that allows people to exercise their First Amendment rights and to communicate; that’s why the social media sites have been such a good thing for society up till now.

However, now that those sites have decided to silence voices they don’t like, they have become tools of tyranny; it’s not surprising that Google dropped its “Don’t be evil” motto.  We need to take action to prevent them from achieving their goal of “deplatforming” all voices they don’t like.

Deplatforming is the current left-wing euphemism for censorship and it is universally applied only to conservative voices.  It means censoring any speech by a group solely based on its legal content.

The simple technique that can be used to end the censorship is to have DoJ interpret existing law, or for Congress to pass a law, stating that any Internet site that controls its content for any reason other than criminal activity is a publisher, not a platform.

For example if a site removes only criminal posts — advocating violence, terrorist recruiting, child porn, etc. — then they would be considered a platform.  But if they removed content based on First Amendment protected speech — removing Antifa is violent posts vs removing posts that call for killing members of Antifa — they would be considered a publisher.

This is consistent with the common and legal understanding of publishers and platforms. You can’t sue AT&T if someone calls you up and libels you because AT&T doesn’t control what’s said over its phone lines. But if AT&T suddenly started censoring certain calls then you would be able to sue them because they would be controlling, and hence responsible for, their content.

Given the amoral sharklike nature of lawyers, the idea of being able to sue amazingly deep-pocketed companies like Facebook would bring about a legal feeding frenzy that would cost social-media companies a fortune and generate a great deal of bad publicity.

While libel is hard to show against public figures, it’s much easier to show against non-public figures.  Hence if someone calls Trump a Nazi, it’s essentially impossible for Trump to sue for libel.  But if some drugged-up Antifa calls a conservative black person a Klan member, the fact that the black person is not a public figure means that there is a good chance that he could win a libel suit.  That’s why lawyers would love this; what’s more likely to convince some jury to award huge amounts of money than a simple housewife, a gay man, or a black pastor being viciously libeled by an amazingly rich company?

Contrary to the concerns of the “let’s surrender now rather than wait for later” conservatives who declare that Facebook et al have the right to control their content — apparently unlike bakers in Colorado — demanding that sites that control their content be held responsible for their content is not an attack on the First Amendment but rather simply stating that a publisher is legally responsible for what they publish. If a book publisher published a book that lied about a non-public person it would be sued in an instant.  That’s why publishers employ fact checkers and require sourcing for claims.

Unless one wishes to argue that libel and slander laws are attacks on the First Amendment, asserting that sites that control their content — which is what censoring conservative voices is — are responsible for that content is not an assault on the First Amendment.

This leaves the job of enforcing neutrality on the people, not the government. The government doesn’t have to decide what should or shouldn’t be on the internet.  The definition of what comprises criminal posts is already contained in the law so no new action would be required.

The problem with censorship by left-wing social media platforms is due solely to the fact that we’ve let those sites become publishers without having to accept the responsibility that entails.  The “let’s surrender today” conservatives are right that as private companies Facebook et al can choose what they publish, but that doesn’t mean that those sites should get a pass on the same libel and slander laws that every other publisher has to worry about.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

There’s a simple constitutional solution to the problem of Internet tyranny which does not involve the government controlling the Internet.

Right now, the tech giants are having their cake and eating it too.  They say that they are content-neutral platforms which do not control what information appears on their sites, when they in fact control the content of their sites by censoring voices they don’t like.

The reason that it’s critical, from a financial perspective, for Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. to be considered platforms is that platforms can’t be sued for libelous content.

But publishers can be sued for the simple reason that a publisher controls the information that is present on their site while a platform doesn’t.

It’s a good thing that platforms can’t be sued for content because that allows people to exercise their First Amendment rights and to communicate; that’s why the social media sites have been such a good thing for society up till now.

However, now that those sites have decided to silence voices they don’t like, they have become tools of tyranny; it’s not surprising that Google dropped its “Don’t be evil” motto.  We need to take action to prevent them from achieving their goal of “deplatforming” all voices they don’t like.

Deplatforming is the current left-wing euphemism for censorship and it is universally applied only to conservative voices.  It means censoring any speech by a group solely based on its legal content.

The simple technique that can be used to end the censorship is to have DoJ interpret existing law, or for Congress to pass a law, stating that any Internet site that controls its content for any reason other than criminal activity is a publisher, not a platform.

For example if a site removes only criminal posts — advocating violence, terrorist recruiting, child porn, etc. — then they would be considered a platform.  But if they removed content based on First Amendment protected speech — removing Antifa is violent posts vs removing posts that call for killing members of Antifa — they would be considered a publisher.

This is consistent with the common and legal understanding of publishers and platforms. You can’t sue AT&T if someone calls you up and libels you because AT&T doesn’t control what’s said over its phone lines. But if AT&T suddenly started censoring certain calls then you would be able to sue them because they would be controlling, and hence responsible for, their content.

Given the amoral sharklike nature of lawyers, the idea of being able to sue amazingly deep-pocketed companies like Facebook would bring about a legal feeding frenzy that would cost social-media companies a fortune and generate a great deal of bad publicity.

While libel is hard to show against public figures, it’s much easier to show against non-public figures.  Hence if someone calls Trump a Nazi, it’s essentially impossible for Trump to sue for libel.  But if some drugged-up Antifa calls a conservative black person a Klan member, the fact that the black person is not a public figure means that there is a good chance that he could win a libel suit.  That’s why lawyers would love this; what’s more likely to convince some jury to award huge amounts of money than a simple housewife, a gay man, or a black pastor being viciously libeled by an amazingly rich company?

Contrary to the concerns of the “let’s surrender now rather than wait for later” conservatives who declare that Facebook et al have the right to control their content — apparently unlike bakers in Colorado — demanding that sites that control their content be held responsible for their content is not an attack on the First Amendment but rather simply stating that a publisher is legally responsible for what they publish. If a book publisher published a book that lied about a non-public person it would be sued in an instant.  That’s why publishers employ fact checkers and require sourcing for claims.

Unless one wishes to argue that libel and slander laws are attacks on the First Amendment, asserting that sites that control their content — which is what censoring conservative voices is — are responsible for that content is not an assault on the First Amendment.

This leaves the job of enforcing neutrality on the people, not the government. The government doesn’t have to decide what should or shouldn’t be on the internet.  The definition of what comprises criminal posts is already contained in the law so no new action would be required.

The problem with censorship by left-wing social media platforms is due solely to the fact that we’ve let those sites become publishers without having to accept the responsibility that entails.  The “let’s surrender today” conservatives are right that as private companies Facebook et al can choose what they publish, but that doesn’t mean that those sites should get a pass on the same libel and slander laws that every other publisher has to worry about.

You can read more of Tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.



Source link